Saturday, July 29, 2006

We now return to our regularly scheduled Brummett-busting

I am grateful to Mr. John Brummett for writing a column today that can help get things back to normal. We have spent the whole week worrying about polls that I think grossly oversampled the second district, perhaps as much as 473 out of 509 voters sampled. After looking over the clues I think that is what happened, but if KTHV is willing to declare otherwise, I'll take them at their word.

Anyway, Brummett is pretty determined to make some kind of "moral equivilence" between Asa Hutchinson and Mike Bebee in his column today. In a sure sign that not even he can vouch for the integrity of Mr. Bebee, Brummett does this by attempting to drag Hutchinson down to Bebee's level. At issue was the internet newsletter from Asa's campaign that accused Bebee of ""a web of deceit," "brazen hypocrisy" and of having "clearly lied" on the gay foster care issue."

Whether or not it was a good idea to say that, the newsletter is 100% correct on the first two charges. That is just what Bebee did and the people of this state better think about whether or not that is the kind of man they want to pull the lever for. The third charge is more problematic, since you have to be clear before you can "clearly lie" and Bebee is next to never clear, even when he wants you to think he is.

(conintued click "Saturday" below and scroll down for the rest of the column, or if sent straight here just scroll down.)

3 Comments:

Brummett then calls Asa a hypocrite for running on the prolife issue while bringing pro-abortion politicians to town.

Frankly, I don't like this either, and I think it would be an excellent idea to stop sending those mixed signals, both politically and morally. Those guys can help raise money with the home crowd, but they can't win over any undecided voters. The people who are in favor of sucking babies' brains out are not going to be impressed just because you have a guest who is also in favor of such bararities, but it will depress your base of civilized people.

Where Brummett misfires is where he says, "At least I'm willing to tell you that those were my words, my honest sentiments, my proud certainties.

But now, asked by the Little Rock newspaper whether those personal attacks on Beebe on his campaign blog were effectively Asa's own words, Kinkade Clintonizes.

He says he wrote the blog item in collaboration with unidentified others. He says the candidate himself knew the "message" and approved it, but didn't see that particular wording."

Here Brummett mistakes an effort to be precise with Clintonizing- and clintonizing is the exact opposite of being precise. Kind of like Bebee on homosexual foster parenting.

Brummett asked if those words were effectively Hutchinson's. The answer was they were not his words, but he approved the message. That seems pretty clear to me. He did not write it, but it is his ship and he is the Captain. It does not matter if a junior officer was on watch when the ship hit the sand bar. The Captain asleep in his stateroom is responsible. That is not the same as saying he was effectively at the wheel. To compare that to the stunt Bebee pulled with homosexual foster parenting is absurd.

But is this even hitting a sandbar? I am not so sure. If it keeps Bebee's duplicity in the news for another cycle it may be worth the hit for over-frankness in describing what Bebee is doing. Brummett is sharp enough to acknowledge that at the end of his column.

This part cracked me up. Brummett wrote, "Here's another Asa finesse: He employs this Internet hatchet man to write hateful things about his opponent on the Internet so that he can take advantage of any damage inflicted without bearing personal responsibility for the words."

Dude, Liberals don't need to employ "internet hatchet men". They have a boatload in the establishement media who are doing the job anyway, posing as the most legitimate "jouranlists" in the state. It is about time the other side got some of their own hatchet men! I was sick and tired of watching the more conservative candidates get hatcheted while smiling and trying to be nice in the hopes that the guys with the hatchets would stop hatcheting them! Liberals find their own medicine highly distateful.

Oh, and where does Attorney General Mike "Catfish" Bebee stand on homosexual foster parenting and adoption today? Brummett writes,"Finally, here's Beebe's answer on gay foster parents: He said he told a gay group in a private meeting that he would not sign any unconstitutional bill banning gay foster parents. Here it is Beebe who Clintonizes, the Clintonizing word being "unconstitutional." He said he has a problem with putting young foster children, preschool and grade-school age, in gay households. He says that's not because of gayness, but because of "external pressures" in the current cultural climate. He likens those to the powerful external pressures he faced or merely sensed as the young son of a poor single mother who moved around a lot and had a last name different from his. He wouldn't elaborate, saying it was too personal."

When Bebee says "External Pressures" he means you bigots who are so unenlightened as to be squeamish when you see to hairy men french-kissing each other- or worse. See the problem with putting a three year old child in a homosexual household acording to Catfish is not that the lifestyle is unnatural and innately bad for the children. No indeed. It is only bad for the children because bigots like you are so uptight about turning three year old children over to homosexuals. It is only wrong because you rednecks think it is, not because Nature and Nature's God proclaim so.

And about that Clintonizing that Bebee does on the "I'll never sign an unconstitutional bill about it", Based on my observations of the trial-lawyer loophole mindset that Mr. Bebee has displayed in the past (such as "we don't need to overturn Roe v. Wade because subsequent decisions have made the law a shell of its former self".) I believe that it would play out like this.: Bebee would be against homosexuals getting their hands on children as foster parents in theory, but sadly, no actual bill ever put before him to do so would ever be "constitutional" as he saw it. No bill on the subject would be pure enough from the tinge of "discrimination" to merit his support.

Some may say I am out of line putting these words in Mr. Bebee's mouth. I'll tell you what, when his own words get more forthright then I will no longer have to translate for you. Don't hold your breath.